Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A little knowledge goes a long way:
Student expectation and satisfaction with hybrid learning
ABSTRACT
The research in this study
preconceived and informed expectations regarding hybrid learning? (2) How satisfied
students with the hybrid course? (3)
course? Secondary research was conducted and
responses from 44 students that were enrolled in an upper level marketing course that was
modified and transitioned into a hybrid learning format
first was a pre-course survey that focused on “preconceived expectations” and was given before
the students were made aware of the hybrid delivery format, the second focused on “informed
expectations” and was given after students
and had reviewed the syllabus, the third survey
perceived performance. T-tests were run to test for significant
and informed expectations; the results
Twenty-one expectation items were found to have significant correlation with satisfaction.
Keywords: online learning, expectations, hybrid, blended, student satisfaction
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
A little knowledge goes a long way:
expectation and satisfaction with hybrid learning
Mary Beth Pinto
Penn State Erie
Wayne Anderson
Penn State Erie
The research in this study answers the following questions: (1) What are
preconceived and informed expectations regarding hybrid learning? (2) How satisfied
students with the hybrid course? (3) What factors are related to satisfaction with this hybrid
Secondary research was conducted and primary data was collected in the form of survey
responses from 44 students that were enrolled in an upper level marketing course that was
o a hybrid learning format. Students were given three surveys; the
course survey that focused on “preconceived expectations” and was given before
aware of the hybrid delivery format, the second focused on “informed
after students were informed about the hybrid format for the
reviewed the syllabus, the third survey was given at the end of the course
tests were run to test for significant differences between preconceived
ectations; the results showed significant difference for 11 expectation items.
were found to have significant correlation with satisfaction.
online learning, expectations, hybrid, blended, student satisfaction
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 1
expectation and satisfaction with hybrid learning
are students’
preconceived and informed expectations regarding hybrid learning? (2) How satisfied are
related to satisfaction with this hybrid
data was collected in the form of survey
responses from 44 students that were enrolled in an upper level marketing course that was
Students were given three surveys; the
course survey that focused on “preconceived expectations” and was given before
aware of the hybrid delivery format, the second focused on “informed
format for the course
given at the end of the course and measured
differences between preconceived
showed significant difference for 11 expectation items.
were found to have significant correlation with satisfaction.
BACKGROUND
Providing online courses is becoming an increasingly popular trend in higher education
today. Some authors even claim that the “future of all higher education is online”
(Geteducated.com). Since the 1990’s, a number of colleges and universities have modified
traditional face-to-face classroom instruction to include more of an online format
advantages for promoting online
geographical barriers, improved convenience
collaborative learning (Wu, Tennyson, and Hsia 2010).
steady rise in the number of college
students during the fall term of 2009 (Allen and Seaman 2010)
range of options from web-facilitated courses to
primary difference between these options is the percent of course content that is delivered online
(Allen and Seaman 2010). Hybrid course
blended,” are typically defined as a course that combines elements of face
with elements of distance learning.
use of technologies within a blended course. It is up to the discretion of the teacher and the
nature of the course content (e.g. computer science,
Specifically in the area of blended
the blend;” that is, developing the
techniques while enhancing delivery methods for this innovative technique (Sloan Blended
Learning Conference 2012). One way to measure the effectiveness of blended learning is
through student satisfaction. While studies support
in online courses, results showing satisfaction with
been written on student satisfaction
format (Cobb 2011; Sinclaire 2011;
Rodriquez 2010; O’Leary and Quinlan 2007; Dennen, Darabi, and Smith 2007;
Wambach, Connors, and Frey 2002;
2011; Wu, Tennyson, and Hsia 2
environments: hybrid and fully online (
Mansour and Mupinga 2007; Vamosi, Pierce, and Slotkin 2004).
shed light on a number of important issues related to student satisfaction with online and hybrid
learning such as interactivity between faculty and students,
technology skills, level of knowledge regarding course content,
learning, and previous online learning experience, t
researched questions that should be addressed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
As has been noted, online
education. Understanding student satisfaction within this delivery format has implications for
colleges and universities and their facul
mechanisms to ensure the success of
Expectations are one critical link to assessing student satisfaction.
have assessed satisfaction as an a posteriori
item at the completion of the online course (e.g., Comm and Mathaisel 2002; Cobb 2011).
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
courses is becoming an increasingly popular trend in higher education
Some authors even claim that the “future of all higher education is online”
Since the 1990’s, a number of colleges and universities have modified
face classroom instruction to include more of an online format
line educational options are increased flexibility, elimination of
geographical barriers, improved convenience, and effectiveness for individualized and
collaborative learning (Wu, Tennyson, and Hsia 2010). Data suggests that there has been a
college students enrolling in online courses - over 5.6 million
students during the fall term of 2009 (Allen and Seaman 2010). Online course delivery covers a
facilitated courses to hybrid courses to fully online courses
hese options is the percent of course content that is delivered online
ybrid courses, also referred to as “web-enhanced/assisted or
typically defined as a course that combines elements of face-to-face instruction
nce learning. There is no required formula for reduction of class times or
use of technologies within a blended course. It is up to the discretion of the teacher and the
nature of the course content (e.g. computer science, biology, english, marketing).
Specifically in the area of blended or hybrid learning, the impetus is toward
;” that is, developing the optimal mix of in class and online experiences and teaching
enhancing delivery methods for this innovative technique (Sloan Blended
One way to measure the effectiveness of blended learning is
While studies support the contention that students learn effectively
in online courses, results showing satisfaction with online education have varied.
been written on student satisfaction within various learning platforms, e.g., 1) a pure
11; Beqiri, Chase, and Bishka 2010; Jackson, Jones, and
Rodriquez 2010; O’Leary and Quinlan 2007; Dennen, Darabi, and Smith 2007; Thurmond,
Wambach, Connors, and Frey 2002; Arbaugh 2001); 2) hybrid or blended format (Banerjee
2011; Wu, Tennyson, and Hsia 2010); and 3) a comparison between different learning
environments: hybrid and fully online (Nowell 2011; Lim, Kim, Chen, and Ryder 2008; El
Vamosi, Pierce, and Slotkin 2004). While research to date has
mportant issues related to student satisfaction with online and hybrid
etween faculty and students, comfort with technology
level of knowledge regarding course content, responsibility for perso
ious online learning experience, there are still a number of fruitful and under
hat should be addressed.
nline learning, in particular – hybrid delivery, is increasing in higher
Understanding student satisfaction within this delivery format has implications for
colleges and universities and their faculty as they establish policies, resources, and supp
isms to ensure the success of blended learning initiatives (Vaughan 2007
Expectations are one critical link to assessing student satisfaction. To date, most studies
a posteriori measure; that is, satisfaction is measure
item at the completion of the online course (e.g., Comm and Mathaisel 2002; Cobb 2011).
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 2
courses is becoming an increasingly popular trend in higher education
Some authors even claim that the “future of all higher education is online”
Since the 1990’s, a number of colleges and universities have modified
face classroom instruction to include more of an online format. Among the
ibility, elimination of
and effectiveness for individualized and
Data suggests that there has been a
over 5.6 million
Online course delivery covers a
hybrid courses to fully online courses. The
hese options is the percent of course content that is delivered online
enhanced/assisted or
face instruction
There is no required formula for reduction of class times or
use of technologies within a blended course. It is up to the discretion of the teacher and the
).
ward “perfecting
line experiences and teaching
enhancing delivery methods for this innovative technique (Sloan Blended
One way to measure the effectiveness of blended learning is
that students learn effectively
online education have varied. Volumes have
a pure online
Beqiri, Chase, and Bishka 2010; Jackson, Jones, and
Thurmond,
Arbaugh 2001); 2) hybrid or blended format (Banerjee
010); and 3) a comparison between different learning
Lim, Kim, Chen, and Ryder 2008; El
While research to date has
mportant issues related to student satisfaction with online and hybrid
technology and lack of
responsibility for personal
here are still a number of fruitful and under
hybrid delivery, is increasing in higher
Understanding student satisfaction within this delivery format has implications for
and support
Vaughan 2007).
To date, most studies
measure; that is, satisfaction is measured by a single
item at the completion of the online course (e.g., Comm and Mathaisel 2002; Cobb 2011). Little
research, however, has attempted to measure the gap between students’ expectations and
perceived performance in an online course. A notable excep
Quinlan (2007). Based on the satisfaction/dissatisfaction theory (Oliver1980), these authors
assessed student satisfaction by comparing actual versus expected online
A SERVQUAL methodology was employ
Levels of satisfaction were determined by comparing expectations of quality before the course
began with perceptions of quality after the course was delivered.
The Sloan Consortium’s Pillar Reference Manu
importance of expectations. They identify five factors that result in overall student satisfaction
with online learning, one of which pertains to expectations: A match between actual and
expected learning experiences (Sloan Consortium pdf
expectations as one of the challenges of implementing blended courses.
contends “students new to blended learning initially equate fewer in
work” (p.85). LaBay and Comm (2011
traditional courses versus distance learning course
have a favorable predisposition toward online coursework. In
however, they found students expect more
outcomes from online classes. La Bay and Comm
familiar with, and participate in, a greater number of online courses, and those using a hybr
delivery method, one would anticipate a greater congruence between student expectations and
learning outcomes” (p. 90).
Other researchers such as
Rodriquez (2010), and Osborne, Kr
expectations. Wu et al. found that performance expectations significantly affected learning
satisfaction. Four factors impacted students’ performance expectations:
self-efficacy; system functionality;
instructor. Jackson, Jones, and Rodriguez (2010) studied faculty actions that affected student
satisfaction in two web-based courses. Among several factors, they found that clearly specified
expectations (either verbal or in the syllabus) were highly correlated with student satisfaction.
Osborne et al. studied the assumptions of faculty and students regarding online learning (e.g.,
internet courses are easier; students learn less;
in internet courses are less effective)
assumption construct and the items developed were essentially expectation measures.
Expectations are “assumptions of performance
three sources: personal past experie
what is seen as customary, e.g., “It’s usually done t
To date, no studies have investigated
“preconceived” versus “informed.
environment. Preconceived is defined as “
experience (preconceived notions)
through receiving new information or updated experiences, becoming
For example, once a student has received a course syllabus, explored the course websi
become familiar with the nature of the assignments, their expectations may change
concomitantly.
The issues of preconceived expectations are further complicated by the fact that some
students have had experiences with online learning while other st
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
research, however, has attempted to measure the gap between students’ expectations and
perceived performance in an online course. A notable exception was the work of O’Leary and
Quinlan (2007). Based on the satisfaction/dissatisfaction theory (Oliver1980), these authors
assessed student satisfaction by comparing actual versus expected online learning experiences.
A SERVQUAL methodology was employed (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985; 1988).
Levels of satisfaction were determined by comparing expectations of quality before the course
began with perceptions of quality after the course was delivered.
Pillar Reference Manual on Student Satisfaction
importance of expectations. They identify five factors that result in overall student satisfaction
with online learning, one of which pertains to expectations: A match between actual and
Sloan Consortium pdf). Vaughn (2007) points to student
expectations as one of the challenges of implementing blended courses. For example, he
contends “students new to blended learning initially equate fewer in-person classes to less course
LaBay and Comm (2011) studied the differences in student expectations in
distance learning courses. Their findings show that students generally
ition toward online coursework. In contradiction to Vaughn (2007),
students expect more rather than less work and have lower learning
La Bay and Comm concluded that as “students become more
familiar with, and participate in, a greater number of online courses, and those using a hybr
delivery method, one would anticipate a greater congruence between student expectations and
Other researchers such as Wu, Tennyson, and Hsia (2010); Jackson, Jones, and
Rodriquez (2010), and Osborne, Kriese, Tobey, and Johnson (2009) also investigated
Wu et al. found that performance expectations significantly affected learning
Four factors impacted students’ performance expectations: Students’ computer
efficacy; system functionality; course content; and interaction between student and
instructor. Jackson, Jones, and Rodriguez (2010) studied faculty actions that affected student
based courses. Among several factors, they found that clearly specified
ither verbal or in the syllabus) were highly correlated with student satisfaction.
Osborne et al. studied the assumptions of faculty and students regarding online learning (e.g.,
nternet courses are easier; students learn less; internet courses take more time; and interactions
in internet courses are less effective). While they did not measure expectations per se, their
assumption construct and the items developed were essentially expectation measures.
assumptions of performance” that are typically evidence-based stemming from
personal past experience, the experience of others (e.g., family or
e.g., “It’s usually done this way” (Press 2006).
have investigated two distinct categories of student expectations:
informed.” Students bring preconceived expectations into the learning
defined as “to form (as an opinion) prior to actual knowledge or
notions)” (Merriam-Webster 2012). These expectations often change
through receiving new information or updated experiences, becoming informed expectations.
For example, once a student has received a course syllabus, explored the course websi
become familiar with the nature of the assignments, their expectations may change
The issues of preconceived expectations are further complicated by the fact that some
students have had experiences with online learning while other students have not. Many students
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 3
research, however, has attempted to measure the gap between students’ expectations and
tion was the work of O’Leary and
Quinlan (2007). Based on the satisfaction/dissatisfaction theory (Oliver1980), these authors
earning experiences.
ed (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985; 1988).
Levels of satisfaction were determined by comparing expectations of quality before the course
al on Student Satisfaction supports the
importance of expectations. They identify five factors that result in overall student satisfaction
with online learning, one of which pertains to expectations: A match between actual and
Vaughn (2007) points to student
For example, he
person classes to less course
n student expectations in
Their findings show that students generally
to Vaughn (2007),
lower learning
concluded that as “students become more
familiar with, and participate in, a greater number of online courses, and those using a hybrid
delivery method, one would anticipate a greater congruence between student expectations and
Wu, Tennyson, and Hsia (2010); Jackson, Jones, and
son (2009) also investigated
Wu et al. found that performance expectations significantly affected learning
tudents’ computer
content; and interaction between student and
instructor. Jackson, Jones, and Rodriguez (2010) studied faculty actions that affected student
based courses. Among several factors, they found that clearly specified
ither verbal or in the syllabus) were highly correlated with student satisfaction.
Osborne et al. studied the assumptions of faculty and students regarding online learning (e.g.,
time; and interactions
While they did not measure expectations per se, their
assumption construct and the items developed were essentially expectation measures.
based stemming from
the experience of others (e.g., family or friends), and
categories of student expectations:
expectations into the learning
to form (as an opinion) prior to actual knowledge or
). These expectations often change
expectations.
For example, once a student has received a course syllabus, explored the course website, and
become familiar with the nature of the assignments, their expectations may change
The issues of preconceived expectations are further complicated by the fact that some
udents have not. Many students
enter college having experienced blended learning in
students are influenced by the experiences of others (family and friends) who have taken online
courses (either hybrid or fully onli
notions; however, the level of sophistication in their preconceived notions varies dramatically
depending on factors such as: rumors, personal experiences, peer experiences, reputation of
instructor, and lack of standardization across online courses. They may have negative
perceptions also due to their time management skills, comfort with technology and discipline
(Napier, Dekhane and Smith 2011).
Purpose of Research
The purpose of this research w
students’ preconceived and informed expectations regarding hybrid learning?
are students with the hybrid course?
learning?
Methods and Measures
Data for this study was collected during the
The sample included undergraduate students from one upper level retail marketing course
offered at a public university in the eastern half of t
participated in this study, including 20 men and 24 women. Fifty
forty-eight percent were juniors. Fifty
previously taken an online course.
Prior to the 2011 fall semester, the
a traditional, face-to-face setting.
transition it from the traditional format to a
the change in delivery format when they arrived to class on the first day
employed by O’Leary and Quinlan (2004), student satisfaction was assessed based on the
expectancy confirmation/disconfirmation paradigm originated by Oliver (1980).
Both preconceived and informed expectations were measured in this study using a set of
forty-one expectation items covering six factors: technology, time management,
student attitudes, communication, and course community.
review of the literature on student satisfaction
Tennyson, and Hsia (2009), and El Mansour and Mupinga (2007). Preconceived Ex
items included: “I expect there are more technical problems with computers in a hybrid course.”
“I expect that it is easier to get an ‘A’ in a hybrid cours
course would be a good learning experience.”
that there will be more technical problems with computers in this hybrid course.”
it will be easier to get an ‘A’ in this hybrid course than a traditional course.”
hybrid course will be a good learning experience.”
scale, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree.
First, students were given two pre
items. The first pre-course survey measured preconceived expectations
general and occurred on the first day of class before students received any information about the
hybrid delivery format that would be employed during
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
enter college having experienced blended learning in earlier school settings. In addition,
students are influenced by the experiences of others (family and friends) who have taken online
courses (either hybrid or fully online). Therefore, students enter a class with preconceived
notions; however, the level of sophistication in their preconceived notions varies dramatically
depending on factors such as: rumors, personal experiences, peer experiences, reputation of
, and lack of standardization across online courses. They may have negative
perceptions also due to their time management skills, comfort with technology and discipline
(Napier, Dekhane and Smith 2011).
of this research was to investigate three research questions:
students’ preconceived and informed expectations regarding hybrid learning? (2) How satisfied
are students with the hybrid course? (3) What factors are related to satisfaction with hybrid
study was collected during the fall term of the 2011-2012 academic year
The sample included undergraduate students from one upper level retail marketing course
offered at a public university in the eastern half of the United States. A total of 44 students
participated in this study, including 20 men and 24 women. Fifty-two percent were seniors and
eight percent were juniors. Fifty-two percent (23 participants) indicated that they had
ne course.
semester, the retail marketing course had been taught
. The instructor received approval to modify the course and
from the traditional format to a hybrid-learning format. Students were unaware of
the change in delivery format when they arrived to class on the first day. Using a similar method
employed by O’Leary and Quinlan (2004), student satisfaction was assessed based on the
ion/disconfirmation paradigm originated by Oliver (1980).
Both preconceived and informed expectations were measured in this study using a set of
one expectation items covering six factors: technology, time management,
des, communication, and course community. The six factors were developed from a
student satisfaction, specifically the work of Sinclaire (2011), Wu,
Tennyson, and Hsia (2009), and El Mansour and Mupinga (2007). Preconceived Ex
items included: “I expect there are more technical problems with computers in a hybrid course.”
“I expect that it is easier to get an ‘A’ in a hybrid course than a traditional course.”
course would be a good learning experience.” Informed Expectation items included: “I expect
that there will be more technical problems with computers in this hybrid course.”
it will be easier to get an ‘A’ in this hybrid course than a traditional course.” “I expect this
l be a good learning experience.” All items were assessed on a 5
scale, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree.
First, students were given two pre-course questionnaires consisting of the
survey measured preconceived expectations about hybrid courses
and occurred on the first day of class before students received any information about the
that would be employed during the semester. The first survey also
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 4
In addition,
students are influenced by the experiences of others (family and friends) who have taken online
ne). Therefore, students enter a class with preconceived
notions; however, the level of sophistication in their preconceived notions varies dramatically
depending on factors such as: rumors, personal experiences, peer experiences, reputation of
, and lack of standardization across online courses. They may have negative
perceptions also due to their time management skills, comfort with technology and discipline
(1) What are
(2) How satisfied
lated to satisfaction with hybrid
academic year.
The sample included undergraduate students from one upper level retail marketing course
A total of 44 students
two percent were seniors and
two percent (23 participants) indicated that they had
had been taught exclusively in
The instructor received approval to modify the course and
Students were unaware of
Using a similar method
employed by O’Leary and Quinlan (2004), student satisfaction was assessed based on the
ion/disconfirmation paradigm originated by Oliver (1980).
Both preconceived and informed expectations were measured in this study using a set of
one expectation items covering six factors: technology, time management, course content,
s were developed from a
, specifically the work of Sinclaire (2011), Wu,
Tennyson, and Hsia (2009), and El Mansour and Mupinga (2007). Preconceived Expectation
items included: “I expect there are more technical problems with computers in a hybrid course.”
e than a traditional course.” “A hybrid
rmed Expectation items included: “I expect
that there will be more technical problems with computers in this hybrid course.” “I expect that
“I expect this
All items were assessed on a 5-point Likert
the 41 expectation
about hybrid courses in
and occurred on the first day of class before students received any information about the
The first survey also
included questions regarding students’ interest in taking a hybrid course and past online
experiences (if any). The second survey converted the same 41 preconceived expectation items
into informed expectations. This survey was distributed
1) The students were informed of the hybrid course format; 2) The instructor reviewed the hybrid
course syllabus; and 3) The students were assigned homework to thoroughly review the hybrid
course materials on the university’s class m
Finally, an end-of-course questionnaire
enable the researchers to match expectations with performance, perceived performance items
were developed by converting the expectation questions used in the first two surveys into
perceived performance statements.
factors: technology, time management,
course community – were converted into perceived performance items.
“There were more technical problems with computers in this hybrid course.”
get an ‘A’ in this hybrid course than a traditional course.”
learning experience.” All items were assessed on a 5
Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree.
To measure student satisfaction, students were asked to respond to the following item:
“Overall, how satisfied were you with this hybrid class?” and “How likely would you be to
recommend this hybrid class to other students?” Both items were assessed on a 5
scale.
Results
In order to answer the first research question
informed expectations regarding hybrid learning
each of the 41 expectation items for survey
expectations, the means for an overwhelming majority of the items
hovering around the mid-point on the 5 point Likert scale
items were less than 1.
To test for significant difference between perceived
survey) expectations, t-tests were run
.05) difference for 11 expectation items
expectation items relating to student attitudes
the issues of technology, time management, and course community, there were no significant
differences between students’ preconceived and informed expectations.
The second research question asked
Two measures were used to measure satisfaction: overall satisfaction and likelihood to
recommend. In terms of their overall satisfaction, the mean was 2.98 (S.D.
likelihood to recommend, the mean was 3.18 (S.D. = 1.24). These means hover around the mid
point of the scale.
The third research question asked
hybrid course. To determine what
we ran a Pearson correlation on all informed expectation items with the satisfaction measure.
The significant correlations can be found in
factors related to student satisfaction are multi
(course community, technology, time management, cou
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
ncluded questions regarding students’ interest in taking a hybrid course and past online
The second survey converted the same 41 preconceived expectation items
into informed expectations. This survey was distributed on day two after the following events:
1) The students were informed of the hybrid course format; 2) The instructor reviewed the hybrid
course syllabus; and 3) The students were assigned homework to thoroughly review the hybrid
course materials on the university’s class management system.
course questionnaire was given during the last week of classes. T
expectations with performance, perceived performance items
converting the expectation questions used in the first two surveys into
perceived performance statements. The same set of forty-one expectation items covering six
factors: technology, time management, course content, student attitudes, communication, and
were converted into perceived performance items. Sample items included:
“There were more technical problems with computers in this hybrid course.” “It was easier to
get an ‘A’ in this hybrid course than a traditional course.” “This hybrid course was a good
All items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = Strongly
Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree.
To measure student satisfaction, students were asked to respond to the following item:
ied were you with this hybrid class?” and “How likely would you be to
recommend this hybrid class to other students?” Both items were assessed on a 5
In order to answer the first research question (i.e., what are students’ preconceived and
informed expectations regarding hybrid learning), a series of descriptive statistics were run for
each of the 41 expectation items for surveys one and two. For both preconceived and informed
for an overwhelming majority of the items were essentially
point on the 5 point Likert scale. Standard deviations for almost all
To test for significant difference between perceived (first survey) and informed
s were run. Results of the t-tests showed a statistically
difference for 11 expectation items (see Table 1). The differences found in the t
student attitudes, course content, and communication factors
time management, and course community, there were no significant
udents’ preconceived and informed expectations.
rch question asked how satisfied students are with the hybrid course.
re used to measure satisfaction: overall satisfaction and likelihood to
In terms of their overall satisfaction, the mean was 2.98 (S.D. = 862).
likelihood to recommend, the mean was 3.18 (S.D. = 1.24). These means hover around the mid
e third research question asked what factors are related to student satisfaction in a
determine what e-learning factors were most related to student
orrelation on all informed expectation items with the satisfaction measure.
elations can be found in Table 3. The correlation results show that the
faction are multi-dimensional; items from all six factors measured
(course community, technology, time management, course content, student attitudes, and
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 5
ncluded questions regarding students’ interest in taking a hybrid course and past online
The second survey converted the same 41 preconceived expectation items
the following events:
1) The students were informed of the hybrid course format; 2) The instructor reviewed the hybrid
course syllabus; and 3) The students were assigned homework to thoroughly review the hybrid
uring the last week of classes. To
expectations with performance, perceived performance items
converting the expectation questions used in the first two surveys into
one expectation items covering six
content, student attitudes, communication, and
Sample items included:
“It was easier to
brid course was a good
point Likert scale, where 1 = Strongly
To measure student satisfaction, students were asked to respond to the following item:
ied were you with this hybrid class?” and “How likely would you be to
recommend this hybrid class to other students?” Both items were assessed on a 5-point Likert
preconceived and
a series of descriptive statistics were run for
For both preconceived and informed
essentially neutral,
for almost all
and informed (second
ly significant (p <
The differences found in the t-tests are
communication factors. For
time management, and course community, there were no significant
with the hybrid course.
re used to measure satisfaction: overall satisfaction and likelihood to
= 862). For
likelihood to recommend, the mean was 3.18 (S.D. = 1.24). These means hover around the mid-
atisfaction in a
student satisfaction,
orrelation on all informed expectation items with the satisfaction measure.
show that the
items from all six factors measured
e content, student attitudes, and
communication) showed significant correlation with satisfaction. For example, in terms o
course community, the more students felt a “part of the class” and had the opportunit
from others the more satisfaction they reported
Students’ comfort and skill level
perceived technology as a barrier to their learning, the less satisfied they were with the hybrid
approach (r = .378, p < .01). Time management also related to
learning requires discipline and se
the results showed the more likely students are prone to procrastination, the less they were
satisfied with the hybrid delivery method (r =
satisfaction was students’ perception that the hybrid format offered them more flexibilit
their personal schedules (r = .350, p < .01).
satisfaction. Communication issues positively related to student sa
the dialogue with the instructor (r = .256, p < .01) and students (r =
differing viewpoints (r = .267, p < .01)
interaction during face-to-face time
projects and assignments, was also related to satisfaction
find the course content interesting
more they reported being satisfied with the hybrid format
Discussion
Online course delivery is commonplace on college campuses today.
respondents in this study reported having previously taken an online course.
assessment of student satisfaction with
teaching and student learning. This research study
paradigm (Oliver 1980) to measure student expectations and perceived
course delivery. There are several interesting take
in fact form expectations about online courses
technology, course content, difficulty level,
students. Some of these expectations are brought with them on the first day of the course
(preconceived expectations), and some of these expectations change as they are provided
information about class activities and procedures (informed expectations). The results suggest a
need for faculty and major program areas to “manage the expectations” of students who are
considering enrolling in a hybrid course. Specifically, departments should ask how
assist students in making more informed choices regarding whether o
courses? By eliciting student expectations, faculty can deal with any erroneous conceptions or
clarify course policies and procedures before an unsatisfactory experience o
in this study, students’ expectations
good learning experience improved after reviewing the syllabus and being brief
instructor on the plan for the semester.
In this study, satisfaction levels with
hovering around the mid-point of the scale.
(S.D. = 862). In terms of their likelihood
(S.D. = 1.24). When comparing our results to the past research, the
results on student satisfaction. Some authors report students are very positive about their
experiences with blended learning courses (Vaughn
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
showed significant correlation with satisfaction. For example, in terms o
course community, the more students felt a “part of the class” and had the opportunit
satisfaction they reported with the hybrid format (r = .202, p
comfort and skill level with technology also played a role. The more students
perceived technology as a barrier to their learning, the less satisfied they were with the hybrid
ime management also related to student satisfaction. Since online
learning requires discipline and self-learning on the part of the student, it is not surprising that
the results showed the more likely students are prone to procrastination, the less they were
th the hybrid delivery method (r = -.214, p < .01). Also significantly related to
tisfaction was students’ perception that the hybrid format offered them more flexibilit
.350, p < .01). Communication was also a key factor related to
satisfaction. Communication issues positively related to student satisfaction included: improving
(r = .256, p < .01) and students (r = .300. p < .01)
(r = .267, p < .01), and having online components that enhanced the
face time (r = .302, p < .01). Course content, in addition to course
also related to satisfaction (r = .353, p < .01). The more students
find the course content interesting (r = .320, p < .01) as opposed to boring (r = -.372
more they reported being satisfied with the hybrid format.
Online course delivery is commonplace on college campuses today. In fact, 52% of the
respondents in this study reported having previously taken an online course. As such, an
assessment of student satisfaction with this delivery method is appropriate to improve online
This research study relies on the expectancy disconfirmation
paradigm (Oliver 1980) to measure student expectations and perceived performance of online
There are several interesting take-aways from this research. First,
in fact form expectations about online courses, covering a wide variety of topics such as
technology, course content, difficulty level, and communication with instructor an
ome of these expectations are brought with them on the first day of the course
), and some of these expectations change as they are provided
ies and procedures (informed expectations). The results suggest a
program areas to “manage the expectations” of students who are
hybrid course. Specifically, departments should ask how
students in making more informed choices regarding whether or not to select hybrid
courses? By eliciting student expectations, faculty can deal with any erroneous conceptions or
clarify course policies and procedures before an unsatisfactory experience occurs.
expectations about course content and whether the course would be a
good learning experience improved after reviewing the syllabus and being briefed
instructor on the plan for the semester.
satisfaction levels with the hybrid course format were relative
point of the scale. Students’ overall satisfaction was a mean of
862). In terms of their likelihood to recommend the course to friends, the mean was 3.18
When comparing our results to the past research, the literature shows mixed
Some authors report students are very positive about their
experiences with blended learning courses (Vaughn 2007). In one study, Banerjee (2011)
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 6
showed significant correlation with satisfaction. For example, in terms of
course community, the more students felt a “part of the class” and had the opportunity to learn
.202, p < .05).
The more students
perceived technology as a barrier to their learning, the less satisfied they were with the hybrid
student satisfaction. Since online
learning on the part of the student, it is not surprising that
the results showed the more likely students are prone to procrastination, the less they were
Also significantly related to
tisfaction was students’ perception that the hybrid format offered them more flexibility with
Communication was also a key factor related to
tisfaction included: improving
.300. p < .01), encouraging
, and having online components that enhanced the
in addition to course
. The more students
.372, p < .01), the
In fact, 52% of the
As such, an
delivery method is appropriate to improve online
relies on the expectancy disconfirmation
performance of online
aways from this research. First, students do
covering a wide variety of topics such as
structor and fellow
ome of these expectations are brought with them on the first day of the course
), and some of these expectations change as they are provided
ies and procedures (informed expectations). The results suggest a
program areas to “manage the expectations” of students who are
hybrid course. Specifically, departments should ask how they can
r not to select hybrid
courses? By eliciting student expectations, faculty can deal with any erroneous conceptions or
ccurs. For example,
ontent and whether the course would be a
ed by the
course format were relatively low,
a mean of 2.98
the mean was 3.18
literature shows mixed
Some authors report students are very positive about their
Banerjee (2011)
reported over half of the respondents (
Chen, and Ryder (2008) results also support hybrid learning.
three different modes of instructional delivery (traditional, online, and hybrid).
hybrid learning group reported significant
experience than students in the traditional group. However,
was found between students who studied
classroom environment. Other researchers
and Slotkin (2004) in their study of distance learnin
students reported lower relative levels of satisfaction with the online component of th
and less effectiveness mastering the accounting concepts.
that “undergraduate and graduate students across various disciples generally prefer onsite
learning to either online or hybrid teaching modalities.” (p. 37).
that today’s traditional-age college students have grown up with technology and often e
online features to be incorporated into their academic course work (e.g.,
computer simulations, computer conferencing, and virtual advising), they also perceive online
courses to require more work, have lower learning outcomes and
lower than traditional courses (La Bay and Comm 2011; p. 89)
meta-analysis completed by Means, Toyama,
students may perform best in hybrid courses
curriculum and pedagogy, rather than the medium itself
learning creates certain demands and pressures for students that may not translate into higher
levels of student satisfaction. Further, La Bay and Comm (2011) contend that student
satisfaction with online delivery is impacted by academic status (graduate versus undergraduate),
gender, and students’ inclination to take online courses.
Limitations and Future Research
As with any research, limitations were present.
include a small data sample of 44 students enrolled in one upper leve
marketing course taught by one professor
course was offered in the hybrid format and students were not aware of the format change until
after they were enrolled and received the syl
evaluations revealed that some students may have felt
may not have signed up for had they known in advance
if they would have any interest in taking a hybrid course, only 9 student
21%) expressed some interest or a great deal of interest in the hybrid delivery.
first time a course is offered in a hybrid
any new course offering.
Future expansion on this research
other hybrid delivery formats offered for different majors and different undergraduate levels
more accurate representation of the student population would be achieved by thi
sample size and diversification of hybrid courses for which students would be assessing in their
survey responses. Future research
and how those differences could be better manag
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
eported over half of the respondents (fifty-seven percent) liked blended formats
results also support hybrid learning. They investigated the effects of
tional delivery (traditional, online, and hybrid). S
significantly greater satisfaction levels with their overall learning
experience than students in the traditional group. However, no difference in student s
between students who studied purely online and students who studied in a traditional
researchers have reported contradictory results. Vamosi, Pierce,
in their study of distance learning in an basic accounting course, found that
students reported lower relative levels of satisfaction with the online component of th
and less effectiveness mastering the accounting concepts. Castle and McGuire (2010) suggested
nd graduate students across various disciples generally prefer onsite
learning to either online or hybrid teaching modalities.” (p. 37). It seems that despite the fact
age college students have grown up with technology and often e
online features to be incorporated into their academic course work (e.g., recorded
computer simulations, computer conferencing, and virtual advising), they also perceive online
courses to require more work, have lower learning outcomes and desire for them to be priced
(La Bay and Comm 2011; p. 89), which contradicts results from a
analysis completed by Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones (2009) suggesting
hybrid courses because of differences to conditions of time on task,
curriculum and pedagogy, rather than the medium itself. Estelami (2012) contends that online
learning creates certain demands and pressures for students that may not translate into higher
Further, La Bay and Comm (2011) contend that student
satisfaction with online delivery is impacted by academic status (graduate versus undergraduate),
gender, and students’ inclination to take online courses.
Research
As with any research, limitations were present. The limitations unique to this study
include a small data sample of 44 students enrolled in one upper level (junior/senior) retail
marketing course taught by one professor. This was also the first time that the retail marketing
course was offered in the hybrid format and students were not aware of the format change until
after they were enrolled and received the syllabus on the first day of class. Student course
revealed that some students may have felt “tricked” into a course delivery that they
may not have signed up for had they known in advance. In fact, when asked on the initial survey
if they would have any interest in taking a hybrid course, only 9 students out of 44 students (or
expressed some interest or a great deal of interest in the hybrid delivery. In addition,
a hybrid format, problems normally arise as they often do with
ansion on this research could include increasing the sample size and including
hybrid delivery formats offered for different majors and different undergraduate levels
more accurate representation of the student population would be achieved by this increase in
sample size and diversification of hybrid courses for which students would be assessing in their
Future research could include assessing student versus instructor
and how those differences could be better managed.
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 7
blended formats. Lim, Kim,
investigated the effects of
Students in the
greater satisfaction levels with their overall learning
no difference in student satisfaction
online and students who studied in a traditional
Vamosi, Pierce,
g in an basic accounting course, found that
students reported lower relative levels of satisfaction with the online component of the course
Castle and McGuire (2010) suggested
nd graduate students across various disciples generally prefer onsite
It seems that despite the fact
age college students have grown up with technology and often expect
recorded lectures,
computer simulations, computer conferencing, and virtual advising), they also perceive online
desire for them to be priced
, which contradicts results from a
suggesting
se of differences to conditions of time on task,
Estelami (2012) contends that online
learning creates certain demands and pressures for students that may not translate into higher
Further, La Bay and Comm (2011) contend that student
satisfaction with online delivery is impacted by academic status (graduate versus undergraduate),
The limitations unique to this study
(junior/senior) retail
This was also the first time that the retail marketing
course was offered in the hybrid format and students were not aware of the format change until
labus on the first day of class. Student course
“tricked” into a course delivery that they
In fact, when asked on the initial survey
s out of 44 students (or
In addition, the
problems normally arise as they often do with
include increasing the sample size and including
hybrid delivery formats offered for different majors and different undergraduate levels. A
s increase in
sample size and diversification of hybrid courses for which students would be assessing in their
versus instructor expectations
Table One
Differences Between Preconceived and Informed Expectations
T-Test Comparisons: Significant Results
Projects/Assignments would help
build an understanding of course
related concepts and principles.
The hybrid course would be a good
learning experience.
Hybrid course would be more
“boring” than traditional course.
Novelty of the hybrid course format
would inspire a greater interest in
learning course material than a
traditional course.
Students would be less willing to
“speak their mind” in the hybrid
course format.
Students would communicate more
with each other in hybrid course.
Instructor feedback would be slower
in comparison to traditional courses.
Online discussions and debates
would allow more time to reflect and
prepare well thought out responses.
The hybrid course would have less
camaraderie among students.
Less opportunity for each student to
contribute to class learning.
Differing viewpoints to be
encouraged and discussed.
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
Differences Between Preconceived and Informed Expectations
Test Comparisons: Significant Results
"Preconceived"
Expectations
n=44
"Informed"
Expectations
n=42 t-value
Projects/Assignments would help
build an understanding of course
related concepts and principles.
3.34 3.67 -2.105
The hybrid course would be a good 3.37 3.98 -3.146
“boring” than traditional course. 2.90 2.38 2.323
Novelty of the hybrid course format
would inspire a greater interest in 2.93 3.36 -2.869
Students would be less willing to
“speak their mind” in the hybrid 2.88 2.40 2.188
Students would communicate more
with each other in hybrid course. 3.07 3.50 -2.077
Instructor feedback would be slower
traditional courses. 3.19 2.69 2.497
Online discussions and debates
would allow more time to reflect and
prepare well thought out responses.
3.28 3.79 -2.478
The hybrid course would have less 3.12 2.76 2.286
Less opportunity for each student to 3.09 2.69 2.012
3.19 3.57 -1.980
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 8
value p
2.105 0.038
3.146 0.002
2.323 0.023
2.869 0.005
2.188 0.032
2.077 0.041
2.497 0.015
2.478 0.015
2.286 0.025
2.012 0.047
1.980 0.051
Table Two
Informed Expectations versus Perceived Performance: Were Expectations
T-Test Comparisons: Significant Results
Easier "A"
Easier Grading
Encourage Discussion
Good Learning Experience
Greater Interest
More Student Communication
More time to think out responses
Comfortable participating in the
face-to-face interactions
Improve the dialogue with the
instructor.
Online components will enhance
interactions during the face-to-
class time.
Uncomfortable participating in the
online interactions
Improve the dialogue between
students.
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
Informed Expectations versus Perceived Performance: Were Expectations Met?
Test Comparisons: Significant Results
"Informed"
Expectations
n=42
Perceived
Performance
n=40 t-value
2.71 2.18 2.722
2.90 2.35 2.709
3.52 3.00 2.457
3.98 3.33 2.847
3.36 2.73 3.875
3.50 3.08 2.098
More time to think out responses 3.79 3.25 2.331
Comfortable participating in the 3.24 3.85 -4.470
Improve the dialogue with the 3.33 2.93 2.247
Online components will enhance
-face 3.29 2.78 2.679
Uncomfortable participating in the 2.74 2.08 2.847
Improve the dialogue between 3.36 2.93 2.180
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 9
Met?
value p
2.722 0.008
2.709 0.008
2.457 0.016
2.847 0.006
3.875 0.000
2.098 0.039
2.331 0.022
4.470 0.000
2.247 0.027
2.679 0.009
2.847 0.006
2.180 0.032
Table Three
Relationship of Expectation and Satisfaction
Correlations: Significant Results
Variable
Students feel more “a part of the class”
Group work more fun
Improve the dialogue with the instructor
Better opportunity to learn from other
students
Differing viewpoints to be encouraged
and discussed
Online components will enhance
interactions during the face-to face class
time
Improve the dialogue between students
Project/assignments build learning
Withdraw
Good learning experience
“Boring”
Greater interest
More flexibility
More time to think out responses
Tech requirement barrier
Procrastination
Tech comfort
Tech enhance learning
Learn less
Encourage discussion
Activities consistent with course
*-Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2
**-Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
Relationship of Expectation and Satisfaction
Correlations: Significant Results
Mean S.D.
Students feel more “a part of the class” 2.8 0.939
3.13 1.289
Improve the dialogue with the instructor 2.93 0.944
Better opportunity to learn from other 3.1 1.057
Differing viewpoints to be encouraged 3.45 0.846
Online components will enhance
to face class 2.78 1.074
Improve the dialogue between students 2.93 0.944
Project/assignments build learning 3.4 0.928
2.7 0.992
3.33 1.185
2.44 1.021
2.73 0.816
3.55 1.26
responses 3.25 1.149
2.63 1.102
2.93 0.944
3.3 1.043
3.4 1.057
2.8 1.265
3 1.038
Activities consistent with course 3.53 0.877
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 10
Pearson
Correlation
0.202*
0.376**
0.256**
.360**
.267**
.302**
.300**
.353**
-0.236**
.496**
-0.372**
.320**
.350**
.308**
-0.378**
-0.214*
.382**
.382**
-0.325**
.272**
.328**
REFERENCES
Allen, I. Elaine and Jeff Seaman (2010).
States, 2010. Retrieved at:
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences
Arbaugh, J.B (2001). How instructor immediacy
learning in web-based courses.
Banerjee, Gouri (2011). Blended environments: Learning effectiveness and student s
at a small college in transition.
19.
Beqiri, Mirjeta S., Nancy M. Chase, and Atena Bishka (2010).
empirical investigation of factors affecting student satisfaction.
Business, 85, 95-100.
Castle, Sidney R., and Chad J. McGuire (2010).
online, blended, and face-
education delivery. International Education Studies
Cobb, Susan C. (2011). Social presence, satisfaction, and perceived learning of rn
students in web-based nursing courses.
Learning, 32 (2), 115-19.
Comm, Clare L. and Dennis F. X. Mathaisel (2002).
SERVQUAL model to measure classroom outcomes.
Business Education, 3 (Fall), 35
Dennen, Vanessa P., A. Aubteen Darabi, and Linda J.
interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of a particular instructor
actions on performance and satisfaction.
El Mansour, Bassaou and Davison M. Mupinga (2007).
experiences in hybrid and online classes.
Estelami, Hooman (2012). An exploratory study of the drivers of student satisfaction and
learning experience in hybrid
Education Review, 22 (2), 143
Geteducated.com, http://www.geteducated.com/online
education-guide/83-what-
Jackson, Lana C., Stephanie J. Jones, and Roy C. Rodriguez (2010).
in student satisfaction in online courses.
(4), 78-96.
La Bay, Duncan G. and Clare L. Comm (2011). Student expectations regarding online learning:
Implications for distance learning programs.
(10), 85-95.
Lim, Jon, May Kim, Steve S. Chen,
of student achievement and satisfaction in different learning environments.
Instructional Psychology,
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia
in Online Learning: A Meta
Reports. Retrieved July 28, 2011, from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
. Elaine and Jeff Seaman (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United
etrieved at:
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences, p. 1-25.
How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and
ourses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64 (4), 42
Blended environments: Learning effectiveness and student s
ollege in transition. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks
Chase, and Atena Bishka (2010). Online course delivery: An
empirical investigation of factors affecting student satisfaction. Journal of Education for
McGuire (2010). An analysis of student self-assessment of
-to-face learning environments: Implications for sustainable
International Education Studies, 3 (3), 36-40.
Social presence, satisfaction, and perceived learning of rn
based nursing courses. Teaching With Technology/RN-BSN Online
19. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-32.2.1
Dennis F. X. Mathaisel (2002). Employing gap analysis from the
o measure classroom outcomes. Journal of the Academy of
(Fall), 35-42.
, Vanessa P., A. Aubteen Darabi, and Linda J. Smith (2007). Instructor-
interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of a particular instructor
actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28 (1), 65-
and Davison M. Mupinga (2007). Students' positive and negative
experiences in hybrid and online classes. College Student Journal, 41 (1), 242
Estelami, Hooman (2012). An exploratory study of the drivers of student satisfaction and
ning experience in hybrid –online an purely online marketing courses.
22 (2), 143-155.
http://www.geteducated.com/online-education-facts-and-statistics/distance
-is-hybrid-or-blended-e-learning .
Jones, and Roy C. Rodriguez (2010). Faculty actions that result
student satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
, Duncan G. and Clare L. Comm (2011). Student expectations regarding online learning:
Implications for distance learning programs. Journal of College Teaching & Learning
Lim, Jon, May Kim, Steve S. Chen, and Cynthia E. Ryder (2008). An empirical investigation
of student achievement and satisfaction in different learning environments.
, 35 (2), 113-19.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evidence-Based Practices
in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Evaluative
Reports. Retrieved July 28, 2011, from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#higher
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 11
education in the United
25.
atisfaction and
64 (4), 42-54.
Blended environments: Learning effectiveness and student satisfaction
rnal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15 (1), 8-
Online course delivery: An
Journal of Education for
assessment of
face learning environments: Implications for sustainable
Social presence, satisfaction, and perceived learning of rn-to-bsn
BSN Online
32.2.1 .
nalysis from the
Journal of the Academy of
-learner
interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of a particular instructor
-79.
positive and negative
41 (1), 242-248.
Estelami, Hooman (2012). An exploratory study of the drivers of student satisfaction and
online an purely online marketing courses. Marketing
statistics/distance-
aculty actions that result
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14
, Duncan G. and Clare L. Comm (2011). Student expectations regarding online learning:
Teaching & Learning, 1
empirical investigation
of student achievement and satisfaction in different learning environments. Journal of
Based Practices
Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Evaluative
Merriam Webster (2012). Retreived at:
webster.com/dictionary/preconceived
Napier, Nannette P., Sonal Dekhane, and Stella Smith (2011).
learning: understanding student and faculty perceptions.
Learning Networks, 15 (1), 20
Nowell, Gadis (2011). Student course evaluations in traditional and blended courses: a case
study. American Journal of Business Education
O'Leary, Patrick F., and Thomas J. Quinlan Jr
effects on satisfaction and achievement of online students.
Education, 21 (3), 133-43.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research
Osborne, Randall E., Paul Kriese, Heather Tobey,
two shall meet?: student vs. faculty perceptions of online courses.
Educational Computing Research
Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future rese
Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scales
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1)
40.
Press, Irwin (2006). Patient satisfaction: understanding and managing the experience of care,
2nd
edition, Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press
Sinclaire, Jollean K (2011). Student
organizational behavior.
The Sloan Consortium Blended Learning Conference (2012),
http://sloanconsortium.org/con
perfecting-blend
The Sloan Consortium, The Pillar Reference Quick Guide, retrieved
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/
Bruce B. Frey (2002). Evaluation of
environment by controlling for student characteristics.
Education, 16 (3), 169-90.
Vaughan, Norman (2007). Perspectives on
Journal on E-Learning, 6
Vamosi, Alexander R., Barbara G. P
an accounting principles course
of Education for Business
Wu, Jen-Her, Tennyson, Robert D.
in a blended e-learning system environment.
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page
Merriam Webster (2012). Retreived at: http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/preconceived
onal Dekhane, and Stella Smith (2011). Transitioning to blended
learning: understanding student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Asynchronous
15 (1), 20-32.
course evaluations in traditional and blended courses: a case
al of Business Education, 4 (1), 13-18.
Thomas J. Quinlan Jr. (2007). Learner-instructor telephone interaction:
effects on satisfaction and achievement of online students. American Journal of Distance
43.
A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (November), 460-469.
Osborne, Randall E., Paul Kriese, Heather Tobey, and Emily Johnson (2009). And
shall meet?: student vs. faculty perceptions of online courses. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 40 (2), 171-82.
A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49
Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scales
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1)
isfaction: understanding and managing the experience of care,
edition, Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
Student satisfaction with online learning: lessons from
Research in Higher Education Journal, 14 (December),
The Sloan Consortium Blended Learning Conference (2012), retrieved September 23, 2012.
http://sloanconsortium.org/conference/2012/blended/openness-blended-learning
The Sloan Consortium, The Pillar Reference Quick Guide, retrieved September 23, 2012.
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/
Evaluation of student satisfaction: determining the impact of a web
environment by controlling for student characteristics. American Journal of Distance
90.
Perspectives on blended learning in higher education
6 (1), 81-94.
Vamosi, Alexander R., Barbara G. Pierce, and Michael H. Slotkin (2004). Distance
an accounting principles course-student satisfaction and perceptions of efficacy
of Education for Business, July/August, 360-66.
Robert D. and Tzyh-Lih Hsia (2010). A study of student satisfaction
learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55 (1),
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
A little knowledge, Page 12
Transitioning to blended
Journal of Asynchronous
course evaluations in traditional and blended courses: a case
instructor telephone interaction:
American Journal of Distance
A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
And never the
Journal of
A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry (1985). A conceptual model of service
, 49, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scales
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-
isfaction: understanding and managing the experience of care,
satisfaction with online learning: lessons from
14 (December), 1-19.
retrieved September 23, 2012.
learning-
September 23, 2012.
student satisfaction: determining the impact of a web-based
American Journal of Distance
ducation. International
Distance learning in
student satisfaction and perceptions of efficacy. Journal
study of student satisfaction
55 (1), 155-64.